A landmark new study out of Canada exposes yet another lie propagated by the biotechnology industry, this time blowing a hole in the false claim that a certain genetic pesticide used in the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) crops does not end up in the human body upon consumption. Researchers from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Can., have proven that Bt toxin, which is used in GM corn and other crops, definitively makes its way into the blood supply, contrary to what Big Bio claims -- and this toxin was found in the bloodstreams of 93 percent of pregnant women tested.

Published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the study explains that Bt toxin enters the body not only through direct consumption of GMOs, but also from consumption of meat, milk and eggs from animals whose feed contains GMOs. Among all women tested, 80 percent of the pregnant group tested positive for Bt toxin in their babies' umbilical cords, and 69 percent of non-pregnant women tested positive for Bt toxin.

Calling it a toxin does not necessarily mean it is toxic to humans. There are hundreds of detectable trace chemicals in the human body that weren’t there in prehistoric time. The problem with these stories is the announcement of “detection” of this or that also ads the veiled implication that some kind of damage is being caused by the chemical’s presence. In most cases the chemical simply passes through unnoticed. That we can sample blood and detect it doesn’t change anything.

But who needs logic when a good emotional scare will drum up a new cause.

5
posted on 05/25/2011 7:25:50 AM PDT
by ElkGroveDan
(My tagline is in the shop.)

1. Where does one procure Bt?
2. Is it naturally occurring?
3. Do any plants produce Bt?
4. If one were to grow their own food, would that eliminate all Bt in that food?
5. What are the names of the “researchers,” and are they unbiased in their research?

Are these detected levels of Bt toxin better or worse than the likely replacement of chemical pesticides - and at what exposure levels?

Now it is troubling that it seems the GM industry downplayed this - but if their studies showed that only 0.01% of the toxin is bio-available and thus high exposure levels are not a threat as 99.99% of it does pass through the digestive system unabsorbed and the levels they are detecting are consistent with this low absorption rate - then the science itself wasn't in error or misleading - it is running around screaming about this low level exposure that is in error and misleading.

But I wouldn't expect a rational treatment of any actual Science from the source in question.

Some people are fanatically religious about their diet - all purities and impurities- anecdote becomes superior to peer reviewed studies - and well established scientific principles take a back seat to pseduscientific babble.

8
posted on 05/25/2011 7:33:45 AM PDT
by allmendream
(Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)

SO, is there a problem? How many thousands of chemicals make their way into the blood every day? It isn’t a problem unless it is at a toxic level. We breath carbon monoxide, consume arsenic, and cyanide compounds on a daily basis. Please understand, we live in a toxic world, “the dose makes the toxin.” Paracelsus

Don’t buy the anti-biotech rubbish—lawyers seeking money is what it is mostly about.

9
posted on 05/25/2011 7:37:04 AM PDT
by Neoliberalnot
((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))

Precisely. Folks, Bt is Bacillus Thuringiensis. This is one of the oldest and original natural pesticide bacterias. Those Freeper gardeners/farmers know this well. The bacillus is deadly to cabbage worms/other sucking worms on fleshy leaf vegetables and many fruiting vegetables. The “toxin” is toxic to the worms.

There is considerable evidence and information on what the “toxin” produced by the bacteria, actually is chemically. It is not a heavy metal, and it is not biologically active.

What has happened is that genetically modified corn has been modified to permit this bacteria to be taken up, such that nasty disgusting (crapping) corn worms and others are killed when they try to eat the corn.
If any one has info that the “toxin” has some biologic effect... let us know. This is not even as bad as Sevin.

Some additional info and link to an EPA page on the Monsanto product... which is the actual protein that is what is called an “endotoxin” (an internal toxin) which in the case of corn is targeted and deadly to a corn beetle. The corn MON869 genetically modified, has this in it's genes. So that's one way it is in a “brand” of corn.

As allmendream has pointed out, the endotoxin protein is also sold as a direct application spray for other crops. But this stuff has been around, at least the bacillus itself, which you mix with a sticking agent (like cheap dish soap) and spray on your plants- worms eat it- then they die. Growing collards- we know all about it.

The funny thing is, this was and is one of the NON pesticides, natural killers, touted for 20 years or more by the “organic” health food people. The article is to target Monsanto,(read:tort lawyers) for the audacity to put the genes into corn for the corn to make its own “endotoxin” instead of having to spray it on. Now in the area of “sterile” seeds from Monsanto— that's a different subject and worthy of concern, if you can't save back seed stock for the next year and have to buy it each year from Monsanto.

We have lots of things in our environment in quantities that could be characterized as toxic— like, toxic water- drink too much and you'll die of edema if you can't pee enough.I do adhere to concern about the effect of free radicals on human bodies and aging, heart disease etc, though. That is proven rather well. So, all in context.

“Bt can be found almost everywhere in the world. Surveys have indicated that Bt is distributed in the soil sparsely but frequently worldwide. Bt has been found in all types of terrain, including beaches, desert, and tundra habitats.”

So how many unborn babies were contaminated with bt 20 years ago, oops, we don’t know because no one tested.

These kind of studies which may even be true are just to cause hysteria by people with an agenda.

Researchers from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Can., have proven that Bt toxin, which is used in GM corn and other crops, definitively makes its way into the blood supply, contrary to what Big Bio claims -- and this toxin was found in the bloodstreams of 93 percent of pregnant women tested.

Why anyone eat anything other than Heirloom grown food is completely beyond me. GM corn is widely used for food bases and for food itself.

I recall reading that Monsanto and Dupont and others now have the entire third world "dependant" on growing Genetically Modified (GM) rice that DOES NOT produce viable seed stock. I also recall that all seed stock for rice in India and China must now be GM and must be purchased. I recall reading somewhere or another that these same companies have done the exact same thing with soybeans. There is a claim of "higher yields". But there is obviously, much higher costs. These "costs" may well include the extra costs to health of those who eat GM rice, soybeans and other food staples. If this is true, then in my opinion, it borders on criminal.

17
posted on 05/25/2011 8:11:59 AM PDT
by pyx
(Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)

In most cases the chemical simply passes through unnoticed. That we can sample blood and detect it doesnt change anything.

That's true, but... Naturally occurring toxins have no "requirement" to be non-injurious. In fact, they were selected because they work to the degree that the pest does not become tolerant of them. This is why, for example, many butterflies home in on only one particular plant, because they "co-adapted" with the plant such that their larvae are tolerant to the toxins it produces.

As a class of chemicals, they're called "defensins." We already know that many naturally-occurring defensins are NASTY carcinogens. People consume as much as 5,000 to 10,000 times, by weight, of naturally occurring toxins as opposed to synthetic pesticides. Hence, IMO we should be more concerned in some respects about naturally occurring toxins than those synthetic toxins that were developed and tested to be as benign to humans as possible. Yet one notes that NOT ONE food agency even tests food for its relative naturally occurring toxicity. The reason is simple: it's bad for global industrial agriculture.

Most plants produce those toxins in response to pest attack. The closer the source of food to the consumer and the sooner it is consumed, the less defensin there will be in the food. That's bad news for industries that want to transport food between continents.

18
posted on 05/25/2011 8:12:16 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)

I recall reading that Monsanto and Dupont and others now have the entire third world "dependant" on growing Genetically Modified (GM) rice that DOES NOT produce viable seed stock. [snip] If this is true, then in my opinion, it borders on criminal.

It's not criminal, it's a precaution. If you don't want the gene to be transmissible to the wild, then you must design the genome to be non-reproducing. Every one of those farmers has the option of growing something else. Yet apparently they consider the benefits of GM varieties to be worth the expense of purchasing seed.

The problem is of course what to do if the supplier fails, which constitutes a risk that ends up being socialized. Were this a properly functioning system, there would be farmers paid to grow heirloom seed merely as a precaution.

20
posted on 05/25/2011 8:17:53 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)

The real story here is that these companies have stated over and over again that these naturally occuring, though genetically altered bacteria, such as Bt, would never make it into the human body. The way Bt works is as follows:

The Bt toxin dissolve in the high pH insect gut and become active. The toxins then attack the gut cells of the insect, punching holes in the lining. The Bt spores spills out of the gut and germinate in the insect causing death within a couple days.

Now, granted, we are not insects, but we were told, even promised that this study would never make it into our bodies, but these studies (two within the last week from two different sources) have proven that they are indeed in making it into our gut, surving right on into the blood stream.

So, the question now becomes, what are the effects, the answer is we don't know yet.

this time blowing a hole in the false claim that a certain genetic pesticide used in the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) crops does not end up in the human body upon consumption.

The first question to be asked should be: did the industry make a claim that Bt would not end up in the human body after consumption of GMO foods containing Bt?

2. Then it would be good to know what concern of the regulators caused that question to be asked in the first place?

3. And if the industry did incorrectly claim that Bt would not end up in bodies of those who consumed the food products, then where did their research go wrong, and does this call for further review of all the industry research presented in relation to GMO food crops?

This study comes from a hospital in Quebec, not from some fringe organic food advocate.

This serves as an excellent example of the downside to the incredible advances we've made in analytical chemistry. Being able to detect ever smaller amounts of substances has also given us a dramatic increase in the amount of chemicalphobia in the public. These folks at Natural News are chemicalphobes of the highest order.

You can find just about any toxin you want in our urine or blood if you're able to measure for it in parts per trillion. The average American eats 1 1/2 grams of natural pesticides a day which is about 10,000 times more than the amount of artificial pesticides consumed. Pretty scary, eh? Many natural crops contain more pesticides than the ones treated synthetically. Broccoli, cabbage, celery and apples are examples of produce high in natural pesticides.

Celery purchased in a supermarket will contain, on average, about 800 parts per billion of the natural chemical psoralen. Psoralen is used by celery as a natural means of fending off predators and, in high doses, can damage DNA and tissue in humans. Organic celery, grown without the use of synthetic pesticides, has been shown to contain as much as 6,000 parts per billion of psoralen. Potatoes contain solanine which is a naturally occurring toxin used to protect against blight. In humans, solanine can cause paralysis and death. But....but.....it's natural.....

Unfortunately, the chemicalphobes at Natural News (and chemicalphobes in general) never learned a very basic tenet of toxicology, the dosage makes the poison.

This article is just more silly alarmism from people who understand little about chemistry. They act like it is far worse that people obtain trace amounts of Bt from their food rather than consume a bunch of fumonisins from corn not treated with Bt. This kind of idiocy never solves problems; it only causes them.

24
posted on 05/25/2011 8:49:20 AM PDT
by Mase
(Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)

IMO, the options you mention sometimes just don't work. For example, a potential scenario;

I grow a crop of Heirloom vegetables across the road from your GM vegetables. Eventually, my Heirloom vegetables are cross pollinated by your GM vegetables. And eventually the seed from my Heirloom vegetables becomes impotent like your GM vegetables. I don't have options other than acquire higher costs to feed my family.

Likewise with rice and soybeans grown in India and China.

25
posted on 05/25/2011 8:52:08 AM PDT
by pyx
(Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)

Published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the study explains that Bt toxin enters the body not only through direct consumption of GMOs, but also from consumption of meat, milk and eggs from animals whose feed contains GMOs.

The study was not performed by Natural News, but by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Can., and then published in Reproductive Toxicology

Wiser heads will ignore any alarmism, or knee-jerk dismissiveness from both extremes that surround this sort of question.

More information and study is needed, but if the industry made claims that such substances in GMO foods would not end up in the bodies of humans, and that has been proven false, then that is a significant finding.

I grow a crop of Heirloom vegetables across the road from your GM vegetables. Eventually, my Heirloom vegetables are cross pollinated by your GM vegetables. And eventually the seed from my Heirloom vegetables becomes impotent like your GM vegetables. I don't have options other than acquire higher costs to feed my family.

This is merely an argument pointing out the need for spatial offsets. The supplier and users of the GMO would need to purchase said use by contract as part of the cost associated with deriving the benefit; else said benefit simply isn't worth the cost. That way, differences in terrain and local weather patterns, for example, could be taken into account for how far that pollen would travel and what the containment measures might be with regard to the degree of risk those particular genes may pose.

Look, I'm not new to this argument. I wrote about it in my first book dealing with markets in managing environmental risks. If you think having regulators decide these things justly and efficiently is the way to go, we have a fundamental disagreement because political influence over the latter is easily bought. My point is that the types of modifications would be considerably different if those producing and consuming the product had to interlalize the costs of managing the risks they pose.

28
posted on 05/25/2011 9:13:33 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)

You started out by claiming seed companies were criminal because the progeny of certain patented seeds were sterile and now youre upset because those sterile seeds will cross pollinate?

Let's try my original post, one more time.

I recall reading that Monsanto and Dupont and others now have the entire third world "dependant" on growing Genetically Modified (GM) rice that DOES NOT produce viable seed stock. I also recall that all seed stock for rice in India and China must now be GM and must be purchased. I recall reading somewhere or another that these same companies have done the exact same thing with soybeans. There is a claim of "higher yields". But there is obviously, much higher costs. These "costs" may well include the extra costs to health of those who eat GM rice, soybeans and other food staples. If this is true, then in my opinion, it borders on criminal.

-=] IF [=- there are higher costs which include health care that result from eating GM crops then I believe its reasonable to assume that the health costs would be a hidden cost. -=] IF [=- there are hidden health costs, then in my opinion, hiding those additional costs is dishonest. Being dishonest is, in my opinion, criminal.

I pointed out an example where options don't seem to work, unless one includes the option of higher costs for seed stock.

29
posted on 05/25/2011 9:17:32 AM PDT
by pyx
(Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)

Go take a basic seventh-grade science course before you start posting such alarmist nonsense!

The study was not performed by Natural News, but by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Can., and then published in Reproductive Toxicology

Yes, that is very clear to anyone who can read. Even so, Natural News is a nest of chemicalphobia, toxic terrorism, scientific illiteracy and needless alarmism.

Wiser heads will ignore any alarmism, or knee-jerk dismissiveness from both extremes that surround this sort of question.

Ahh, I see. Pointing out their alarmism equates to knee-jerk dismissiveness? You think the truth lies somewhere in the squishy middle? How squishy.

More information and study is needed

LOL! Yeah, like what measurement was used. Are they measuring for Bt in the blood in picograms? For some reason, Natural News chooses not to inform us of this important information. Like anyone who passed a class in toxicology will know, the dosage makes the poison. Or, as the old German axiom goes: All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.

Do you think Natural News neglected to provide this information because it would hurt their ability to generate as much alarmism as possible, or because they're a bunch of idiots?

but if the industry made claims that such substances in GMO foods would not end up in the bodies of humans, and that has been proven false, then that is a significant finding

Why would it be a significant finding? Did you ever stop to think that at the time they made the claim we didn't have the analytical capabilities to measure for the substance in the amounts found in the blood?

Good grief, you consume benzene in your drinking water in amounts measured in ppb. Benzene is extremely toxic. Yet, there it is in what we consider perfectly safe drinking water. The only reason we don't take it out is because filtering technology doesn't currently exist to do it. Even if it did, that wouldn't stop you from breathing it in from the air every day. This story is most likely a bunch of crap just like all the other chemicalphobia they subject their readers to. People are scared to death of things they don't understand. Does this include you?

Safety, the absence of risk, cannot be proven by science. The limit of detection always determines the extent of what we mean by safety, and we cannot prove the absence of something only its presence.

34
posted on 05/25/2011 9:34:05 AM PDT
by Mase
(Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)

Yet, there it (benzene) is in what we consider perfectly safe drinking water.

I have heard that in many cities tap water, benzene in traceable amounts is present.

I really don't know the answer to the question, Is benzene typically present in drinking water coming from a drilled well ? I ask because, many rural and farm properties around the nation (and in North America for that matter) use drinking water from drilled wells.

38
posted on 05/25/2011 9:43:54 AM PDT
by pyx
(Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)

There is a claim of "higher yields". But there is obviously, much higher costs.

There is a claim of higher yields? Do you know anything about the history of genetically modified food? Have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug? Here are a few facts:

The initial yields of Borlaug's crops were higher than any ever harvested in South Asia. The countries subsequently committed to importing large quantities of both the Lerma Rojo 64 and Sonora 64 varieties. In 1966, India imported 18,000 tons the largest purchase and import of any seed in the world at that time. In 1967, Pakistan imported 42,000 tons, and Turkey 21,000 tons. Pakistan's import, planted on 1.5 million acres (6,100 km²), produced enough wheat to seed the entire nation's wheatland the following year.[13] By 1968, when Ehrlich's book was released, William Gaud of the United States Agency for International Development was calling Borlaug's work a "Green Revolution."High yields led to shortages: of labor to harvest the crops; bullock carts to haul it to the threshing floor; jute bags, trucks, rail cars, and grain storage facilities. Some local governments were forced to close school buildings temporarily to use them for grain storage.

In Pakistan, wheat yields nearly doubled, from 4.6 million tons in 1965 to 7.3 million tons in 1970; Pakistan was self-sufficient in wheat production by 1968. Yields were over 21 million tons by 2000. In India, yields increased from 12.3 million tons in 1965 to 20.1 million tons in 1970. By 1974, India was self-sufficient in the production of all cereals. By 2000, India was harvesting a record 76.4 million tons of wheat. Since the 1960s, food production in both nations has increased faster than the rate of population growth. Paul Waggoner, of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, calculates that India's use of high-yield farming has prevented 100 million acres (400,000 km²) of virgin land from being converted into farmlandan area about the size of California, or 13.6 percent of the total area of India.[15] The use of these wheat varieties has also had a substantial effect on production in six Latin American countries, six countries in the Near and Middle East, and several others in Africa.

A billion people, or more, are alive today because Borlaug didn't listen to the chemicalphobes and other assorted elitists and moved forward with his genetic modifications. Now, tell us all about your understanding of those "obviously, much higher costs."

40
posted on 05/25/2011 9:57:50 AM PDT
by Mase
(Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)

Quite clearly they are stating or understanding that “Bt” means Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacteria. Also that this bacteria produces an endotoxin, a protein which is naturally deadly to certain agricultural pests.

They also are making the point this is some agenda driven drivel, which it is. Reference my prior posts #11, and #13.

Scythian was making the point that industry had said the endotoxin would not end up in humans. But it (apparently, if they did the work right— and who knows) does.
So, what does a protein do when it hits PH2 acid in the stomach? It completely denatures, and breaks down, into amino acids... some of which are useful, some are not.

What the article doesn’t make clear is they say the “study” is claiming finding “protein” in the umbilical blood—not possible unless they mean amino acid . They may be stretching it a little- since a “protein” of this type would have to be “labeled” in some way to ID it to the product. Monsanto has some kind of proprietary chemical label on their product. The “proof” is the label— and just the label doesn’t mean the endotoxin is present as such, but maybe a labeled amino acid. Since the “label” is proprietary they’d have to know what it was to start with.

But even if it did show up... as many have pointed out here.. it is not present in any real level of any provable harm.

The discussion of GM crops (which are created sterile to prevent the genetic introduction to the environment) causing heirloom crops to “go sterile” is falsely premised— since sterile is sterile (unless it really isn’t which would be huge).

A grower, have to deal with this stuff all the time. And “organic” means you fertilize with manure, FR folks.

You are right to admonish folks to get up to speed. Notice these anti-monsanto people, and enviro whacks have no problem with the number of people killed by malaria since the elimination of DDT. Or the fact that alar didn’t do a damn thing to people, but made beautiful apples. There is an astounding lack of chemical knowledge, even 7th grade level.

The "Bt toxin" reported as analytically detected in your article has nothing (zero) to do with the "endotoxin factory" bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis.

Genetically modified ("GM") plants have been modified to become their own "endotoxin factories". No microorganism (specifically, no B. thuringiensis) is involved in their self-production of the "Bt" endotoxin.

"The ["Bt toxin"] crystals are aggregates of a large protein (about 130-140 kDa) that is actually a protoxin - it must be activated before it has any effect. The crystal protein is highly insoluble in normal conditions, so it is entirely safe to humans, higher animals and most insects. However, it is solubilised in reducing conditions of high pH (above about pH 9.5) - the conditions commonly found in the mid-gut of lepidopteran larvae. For this reason, Bt is a highly specific insecticidal agent." (Emphasis added.)

FYI, pH 9.5 is a highly alkaline condition. In the human body, pH of over 7.45 is the dangerous imbalance called, "ALKALOSIS".

In order for the "Bt toxin" to be active in your body, you would have to be near death and in a coma due to extreme alkalosis.

The presence of "detectable trace Bt toxin" in the human body in survivable pH conditions -- is totally insignificant.

Only an ignorant or duplicitious eco-wacko pushing an idiotic agenda would claim otherwise.

44
posted on 05/25/2011 10:20:34 AM PDT
by TXnMA
(There is no Constitutional right to NOT be offended.)

Like anyone who passed a class in toxicology will know, the dosage makes the poison.

Lol, so that's your standard? Even the FDA admits they don't know the long term effects of all the drugs that have been approved, when taken at the approved dosages for long periods of time. But I guess you know the effects of long term doses of Bt and all other substances that humans might ingest.

And where this really ends up for many, maybe even most consumers, is that government is again dictating what people must accept, and so far has even refused labeling requirements for GMO foods. It's just more big government taking away people's choices, which seems to be almost epidemic with Obama and other big government types. It's amazing that anyone at FR defends this neverending, statist urge to take away people's choices.

And there are other areas where big government refuses to provide informative labels that consumers desire.

You are very unconvincing. And you try to sound convincing by throwing out irrelevant blather that has little to do with this specific issue.

Do you have evidence that there is now more sensitive testing equipment than when food industry spokesmen said that the Bt would not end up in the body of humans?

And you really love the absurdity that because one substance is ingested in water or food, that no one should be concerned about other, additional substances that could be ingested that way.

Lots of blather and little that's relevant from you.

It's about big government taking away choices and dictating what information people are allowed to have to base decisions upon.

The only problem I have with Genetically Modified foods is that certain organizations (mostly Monsanto) have the patents on these products.

And the big problem is that the seeds contained in the produce is not propagatable (if that's even a word).

That means you can't grow your own vegetables from the seeds contained in these foods.

When you combine that with legislationt that increasingly disallows people from growing their own background gardens (why do you think the media makes such a big deal out of MoBama's garden), the result is way too much power in the hands of too few sources.

49
posted on 05/25/2011 10:57:40 AM PDT
by Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.